Pecoraro v. Rostagno-Wallat
805 N.W.2d 226
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wallats are Michigan residents married since 1994; Rostagno-Wallat conceived two children with Wallat while married, with Wallat listed as father on birth certificates.
- Pecoraro, Rostagno-Wallat’s former partner, sought a New York paternity petition and an order of filiation asserting himself as the father of Rostagno-Wallat’s child conceived in 2002.
- New York court, lacking personal jurisdiction over Wallat, allowed the action to proceed without him, and later issued an order of filiation declaring Pecoraro as the father.
- New York later dismissed Pecoraro’s claims against Wallat for lack of personal jurisdiction; New York appellate court affirmed.
- In Michigan, Wallat filed a paternity action and was dismissed, then Pecoraro sought enforcement of the New York order and Rostagno-Wallat and Pecoraro sought declarations of paternity.
- Michigan trial court ultimately ruled for Pecoraro; the Wallats appeal, challenging Pecoraro’s standing and Full Faith and Credit compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pecoraro’s standing to pursue paternity | Pecoraro contends his standing under Michigan Paternity Act § 722.714(1). | Wallat argues Pecoraro lacks standing because no prior court ruled the child not to be the issue of the marriage, and he cannot be a parent under the Act. | Pecoraro lacks standing under the Paternity Act. |
| Full Faith and Credit to New York order | Pecoraro asserts the New York order should be recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. | Wallat argues New York lacked personal jurisdiction and the order did not bind him as a necessary party. | New York order not entitled to full faith and credit; New York lacked personal jurisdiction over Wallat. |
| Effect of New York's status as a non-binding/partial proceeding | Pecoraro asserts that the New York proceeding should still support paternity. | Wallat contends the proceeding did not settle between Rostagno-Wallat and Wallat and thus cannot bind Wallat. | New York proceeding did not settle the contending parties; cannot bind Wallat. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Jeudevine, 475 Mich 696 (2006) (standing under Paternity Act requires prior determination between mother and legal father)
- Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231 (1991) (parentage and standing interplay with Child Custody Act)
- In re KH, 469 Mich 621 (2004) (definition of child born out of wedlock and paternity consequences)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) (full faith and credit standards for foreign judgments)
- Martino v Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 218 Mich App 54 (1996) (full faith and credit and jurisdiction considerations)
- Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691 (1982) (collateral attack on foreign judgments; personal jurisdiction)
- Jeffrey v. Rapid American Corp., 448 Mich 178 (1986) (due process and personal jurisdiction limitations on judgments)
- Hare v. Starr Commonwealth Corp., 291 Mich App 206 (2010) (full faith and credit and jurisdiction principles)
- California v. Max Larsen, Inc., 31 Mich App 594 (1972) (full faith and credit considerations in Michigan appellate context)